Standing Committee E

[Mr. Derek Conway in the Chair]

Animal Health Bill

Schedule 1 - Adjusted compensation

Question proposed [29 November], That this schedule be the First schedule to the Bill. 
 Question again proposed.

Ann Winterton: Too many sleepless nights—[Hon. Members: ''Oh.'']—have made me slow on my feet this morning. There is no question of ''oh'' or ''ah''; it is only work, I am afraid.
 This is an extremely important part of the Bill, and some interesting points have been made in the debates on the amendments. The Minister has been patient and has made one or two small concessions, which are to be welcomed, and we look forward to seeing them written in tablets of stone on Report. 
 We began the debate with an amendment to ensure that farmers were not left uncertain for longer than 28 days after their stock had been slaughtered about the level of compensation that they would receive. We withdrew the amendment after the Minister's assurance that 28 days would be the maximum period, and we are grateful to him for that. 
 We moved on to the vexed question whether compensation should be paid fully from the word go, which would mean 100 per cent. compensation rather than 75 per cent. of full market value. Bearing in mind that the Minister and others have said that the number of farmers who did not implement good biosecurity measures was minimal, the presumption that farmers should receive only 75 per cent. compensation immediately, and then be judged by inspectors as to whether they would qualify for the further 25 per cent. to make up a full 100 per cent., was thoroughly debated. The disease risk assessment to ensure farmers' entitlement to the final 25 per cent. of compensation was also discussed. Valid points were made about ensuring that every farmer would understand what was required on that person's farm, and that that advice should be given by people, whom the Minister would appoint, other than the inspectors. However, that line of argument fell by the wayside. 
 It is essential that biosecurity plans are farm specific because different topographies mean that biosecurity risks can be greater in some areas than others. We argued that a disease risk assessment must take place within seven days of the Minister having reason to believe that such an assessment was necessary, and that it should occur at a convenient time when the 
 occupier could be present. We also pressed for independent veterinary surgeons or practitioners to be used in the process. 
 The farming community has had a terrible experience with the foot and mouth epidemic, and the Minister recognises that. As a result of the epidemic getting completely out of control, the measures that had to be undertaken to try to halt the disease have resulted in a grave lack of trust among the rural and farming communities towards the Government and the centralisation of the powers of government. A great deal of work must be done to put back the confidence and trust that have been devastated by events. The schedule, and the issues that were raised during the debates on it, has not achieved what is required in the present circumstances. Opposition Members and I believe that the schedule is regrettable, and I hope that we shall return to it on Report.

Elliot Morley: On schedule 1, we debated the key principles that underpin the Bill in relation to slaughter powers and compensation. I have undertaken to consult widely on those issues, and the Committee has seen the printed copy of my speaking notes on that matter. Those consultations will take place as soon as possible in the new year, and will provide an opportunity to address a range of issues that have been raised in Committee by Opposition and Government Members. We intend to involve people in public consultation and make the guidelines that we intend to bring forward—in particular, protocols relating to vets, slaughter policy and appeals policy—publicly available so that the process is open and transparent, and people can see exactly what is intended. The point of the Bill is to ensure that if culling forms part of future disease control measures, it must be done quickly and efficiently.
 I should like to clarify a point about the 55 cases in North Yorkshire, a significant proportion of which later became infected premises, where the divisional veterinary manager upheld appeals. That was described as the Thirsk area because the Thirsk blue box area is used to describe that geographical location. To be clear on this point, there were not 55 cases in the Thirsk area; there were 55 cases in the North Yorkshire area. In the Thirsk area, 10 cases were upheld by the DVM, of which two later became infected premises. That 20 per cent. infection rate fits in with the North Yorkshire average of between 20 and 30 per cent. Although the infection rate was 20 per cent., that is still a significant figure in terms of the spread of a disease, which is another issue that we must take into account. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That this schedule be the First schedule to the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 4 - Slaughter of vaccinated animals

Ann Winterton: I beg to move amendment No. 127, in page 2, line 34, after 'any', insert 'reasonable'.
 Proposed section 16A(3) states: 
 ''The power conferred by this section extends to taking any— 
 (a) which is required to enable any such animal to be slaughtered, or 
 (b) which is otherwise required in connection with the slaughter.'' 
Great concerns have been expressed by the farming community, and others, about the powers that the Minister is taking in the Bill. As for the slaughter of vaccinated animals, we would like some clarification on the powers that are conferred on the person acting on behalf of the Minister. It is only reasonable that there should be some clarification on the kind of action that can be taken. I would welcome the Minister's comments on this probing amendment.

Elliot Morley: As I have assured the Committee before, the Government are under an obligation to be reasonable in the exercise of any powers. That would also apply to those powers in relation to the slaughter of vaccinated animals.
 I gave some examples earlier in the debate of where people might want to consider vaccinating animals and then slaughtering them later, primarily as a disposal option which would deal with welfare and the need for orderly disposal. I want to make it clear to the Committee that vaccinate and slaughter is not an option that I personally support, apart from in very specialised cases. If vaccination is to be used, I would much prefer a vaccinate-and-live policy, but there are circumstances in which we might want to consider vaccinate and slaughter. It is all part of the general philosophy of the Bill, which is to provide as wide-ranging powers as possible, to give the maximum flexibility to any disease control approach. 
 When we considered vaccination and slaughter in the East Yorkshire pig units, we called in the various stakeholders and had detailed consultations with them to explain the options and reasoning. I would envisage that that approach would always be applied when these options are used as a disease control measure.
 I assure the hon. Lady that we do not need to have ''reasonable'' in the Bill, because we are obliged to act in a reasonable way. I would want no other option to be applied.

Ann Winterton: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Derek Conway: With this, it will be convenient to take new clause 2—Vaccination as alternative to slaughter—
 'In the 1981 Act the following section is inserted after section 16.
 ''16AA Vaccination as alternative to slaughter
 The owner or person for the time being in charge of any animal the slaughter of which has been authorised for the purpose of preventing the spread of foot-and-mouth disease may apply to the Minister for it to be treated with vaccine in place of being slaughtered; and any such application shall be granted.''.'

Ann Winterton: This is an important clause, which deals with scrapie. The new clause which we have tabled concerns vaccination, and I will start on the issue of vaccination as an alternative to slaughter.
 The clause would ensure that if there were, heaven forbid, to be another foot and mouth epidemic, the option of vaccination would be considered. Frankly, it is likely that the farming community and the public as a whole would simply not put up with another contiguous cull policy, bearing in mind the shockwaves that ran through the country at the time of the epidemic, and the awful scenes that we saw on our television screens. One accepts that, without compliance from the farming community and others, there can be no meaningful disease control. I am sure that the farming community as a whole, if properly consulted about these matters, will comply and be as helpful as it possibly can. 
 Many people have argued that the decisions on vaccination are political rather than scientific. For example, the NFU was against compensation during the last epidemic, partly because there was no compensation for the 12-month restrictions placed on animals post-vaccination, unlike the slaughter policy. Vaccination would have affected our export markets. Indeed, those who were in the export trade told the Minister, probably in no uncertain terms, that they did not wish to go along with the vaccination policy. One can argue that, if used, vaccination must be used early, which is perhaps another reason to include the new clause. 
 It is true that the science of vaccination is progressing all the time. Precise dosage levels can be determined, and in tests vaccine can be distinguished from a live infection. Although there is a delay in terms of immunity, vaccination would place much less strain on resources, certainly at the time of an epidemic. As the Minister himself said, the introduction of a policy of vaccination before slaughter would allow the more orderly slaughter of animals and disposal of carcases, 
 thereby avoiding the chaotic conditions that prevailed at the time of an epidemic that, we hope, will shortly be at an end. 
 The scientific community has developed many new tests and newer, smarter vaccines, in which there should be further investment and research. Over the weekend, I spoke to a bright young constituent of mine who managed dairy herds in Saudi Arabia for several years some six or seven years ago. Although his experience is therefore slightly dated, it is still worth mentioning. Even though foot and mouth is endemic in Saudi Arabia, he used to vaccinate and also to explain the vaccination policy for dairy herds. Of course, there is no problem whatsoever with milk from vaccinated dairy herd animals. We accept vaccination for all manner of other conditions, and no one seems to mind about that. 
 We must return to this issue in future. Many people feel that vaccination could have played a part in the foot and mouth epidemic if the decision had been taken early enough. I certainly feel that the issue is open to further debate, and we need to be fully cognisant of scientific improvements that are being made virtually as we speak. The issue would also have benefited from the full debate of an independent public inquiry. Proponents on both sides of the argument could have been cross-examined, and the public could have been better informed. 
 The issue of scrapie is huge, and given that other Opposition Members want to contribute to that debate, perhaps I shall return to it a little later.

Bill Wiggin: New clause 2 provides another opportunity to offer vaccination as an alternative to slaughter. I welcome the Minister's preferring the principle of vaccinate and live to that of vaccinate and slaughter. As I was thinking about that, my eye caught the painting above your head, Mr. Conway. Given the nature of our debate, it is a shame that the painting is not entitled, ''Elliot inciting the British to prevent the landing of imported meat''. I fear, however, that by the end of our deliberations it should probably be entitled, ''Elliot inciting the British to welcome imports from abroad—and he's drawn his sword just in case there are any animals left in the UK that he can slaughter''.
 This is an ideal opportunity to introduce a new clause that would prevent the slaughter that we have witnessed by offering the alternative of vaccination. I recognise that the new clause contains a chink, in that inclusion of the phrase 
''any such application shall be granted'' 
might appear to guarantee the alternative of vaccination to every animal owner in every case. However, the new clause is not unreasonable; it is designed to enable people who love animals to protect their stock and prevent the spread of disease. It would be a positive contribution to the Bill and I hope that it will be welcomed. If we miss this opportunity to encourage vaccination, the legislation will be 
 retrospective, closing the door after the horse has bolted, rather than adding useful, positive steps for the future.

Ann Winterton: Clause 4 gives power to slaughter vaccinated animals, but the Bill does not guarantee that the Minister will pay full compensation, or that the amount will be equal to full market value. Does my hon. Friend agree that nothing less will be adequate, and does he want the Minister to respond to that point?

Bill Wiggin: Very definitely. My hon. Friend's point is excellent. We are having this discussion because hon. Members on both sides of the Committee feel that the Bill needs amending. I hope that we will later move on to discuss those who take the trouble to vaccinate, but then have their stock slaughtered and are not adequately compensated. We must put that situation right. The Bill was drafted in August in the heat of the moment when the slaughter was continuing and the body count mounting. In the cooler light of winter, we can perhaps add useful measures to it.

David Drew: I always find it a little disturbing when people talk about vaccination in the round as if it were a solution for everything. It might be a solution sometimes, but can the hon. Gentleman tell me which countries use foot and mouth vaccination as a prophylactic policy?

Bill Wiggin: I believe that Argentina does, but I have not been there. I encouraged Select Committee members to visit the Welsh-speaking people of Patagonia, but they were not having any of it, so my opportunities to investigate further were sadly headed off.
 As we progress, we must look towards a prophylactic vaccination policy. If it does not currently exist, the Ministry might, when it has finished examining cow and sheep brains, find the funds to promote more positive vaccination policies. I hope that the Committee will accept the new clause with its alternative to slaughter, and I look forward to voting for it.

Colin Breed: I have considerable sympathy with the aims of the new clause, but it is a prime example of why we should have waited until some of the expert science in the reports was available. We would then have had a real idea of how vaccination can play a part in dealing with future FMD outbreaks.
 The new clause has certain deficiencies, and I have a problem with where it says that 
''any such application shall be granted'', 
which farmers could utilise to frustrate and delay. Stopping that happening is one purpose behind the Bill. I do not like some of the Bill's terminology and aims, but I recognise that the Government want to ensure that any future cull is done speedily. I do not, therefore, support the new clause. 
 This subject, however, needs much fuller discussion, undertaken with the benefit of the knowledge of those who are investigating the matter. It is not only the 
 farming community but the general public who write to hon. Members who sometimes show confused understanding of what vaccination means and how it can be used. We need a wider debate, which must be led by proper information from scientific and economic sources, while bearing in mind the social background. 
 The new clause is difficult to support because it says that any farmer can simply apply and ask for such and such to happen. However, the Minister must ensure that when new information is available from inquiries, which I hope will focus on vaccination as an important part of any future disease control mechanism, we have the opportunity to encompass it under legislation. Vaccination must be properly implemented so that it sensibly plays a part in controlling any future outbreak and only the minimum number of animals would need to be slaughtered.

Elliot Morley: I can confirm that the concerns of the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) about the deficiencies in the clause are right. The principle deficiency is that it gives the right to any individuals to vaccinate their animals if they choose.
 During the outbreak, people said that there were many downsides to vaccination—we should not forget that. If we moved to having prophylactic vaccinations, unwelcome consequences in terms of how meat would have to be deboned, hung and heat-treated would follow and cause many difficulties. That fact is not lost on farmers and exporters in the debate on vaccination and although that, in itself, is no reason not to consider vaccination, one should not leave individuals to decide, alone, to vaccinate their herd or flock without having an overall strategy for using vaccination. 
 The new clause would also be against EU directive 85/511, which says that the detail of any vaccination programme must be submitted to the European Commission for scrutiny and approval, and approval cannot be presumed; the Commission cannot give carte blanche to anyone for vaccination. The reason is that, in these days of international global trade and an EU single market, what one member state does may have implications for another. A logical approach must therefore be taken to vaccination. That is why we and the Dutch are sponsoring a major EU conference next week to explore those issues. 
 We accept that vaccination should be a weapon in our armoury. It was an option open to us during the epidemic and we never closed the door on it. After detailed scientific evaluation, I think that the conclusion will be that vaccination would not have worked because of the scale and spread of the epidemic. Vaccination could not have been used in the classical fashion of being a disease control measure. However, as the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) rightly stated, technology moves on and tests get better. The tests that were available have not yet been internationally validated, and that is an important fact. I am not saying that they will not be validated.

Ann Winterton: Is it not true that the tests are undergoing farm trials? They have not been validated, but they are well on the way and I hope that, in the near future, we will have more information.
 The Minister will be aware that the proper use of modern vaccines, if used early enough, could have brought the British epidemic to a halt. They were effectively used in Holland, where action was taken quickly, although it is true that that country took the political decision to have a 10 km cull, which was not based on scientific advice. That decision meant that Holland took out more animals per outbreak than we did.

Elliot Morley: No, I do not agree with that analysis at all. Independent scientific research will demonstrate that that is a fallacy. When the outbreak began, we had no idea where the disease would occur. It affected the length and breadth of the country and it would not have been possible to use ring vaccination, because that would have meant putting a ring around the whole country. Using suppressor vaccination would also have been difficult.
 There is no comparison with the situation in Holland, where people were warned by us and had a small and isolated outbreak that they could move in on quickly. If we had been in that position, we could have dealt with it in exactly the same way. The Dutch Government used vaccination primarily as a means of orderly disposal of the animals. That was a controversial decision in Holland at the time, and in that sense one could argue that it was political. We were never at any time given any scientific advice that vaccination would have been effective in bringing the disease to a halt. If we had been, we would have taken it.

Ann Winterton: Will the Minister concede a point that was made to me by one of my dairy farmers early on in the epidemic when it looked as though the disease was spreading rapidly to Cheshire—that vaccination could have been used to protect dairy herds, bearing in mind that it would not have affected in any way the quality of milk for the market?

Elliot Morley: I can certainly confirm that it would not have affected the quality of milk. Vaccinating for foot and mouth disease does not involve any risk to people. We have made that clear on the DEFRA website, where we give all the pros and cons of vaccination. Vaccination is not a panacea and it probably would not eliminate all culling, but it certainly has a role to play. Improved technology—such as the new test that the hon. Lady mentioned, which identifies antibodies from vaccination and from the virus—will be helpful in any disease control measures. However, that test must complete its validation, as must any test, before we can use it on a wide scale.

Bill Wiggin: When the Minister goes to the conference he may have a chance to research the prophylactic vaccination programme in Uruguay,
 which has been extremely successful, especially in cattle. I hope that he will meet Dr. Paul Sutmoller, who is an expert on the subject, and compare notes with him.

Elliot Morley: We will have discussions with a range of international experts. My information is that prophylactic vaccination in Uruguay failed to eradicate the disease, and it is still endemic. We may discuss the reasons for that, along with many other matters.
 We want disease-free status in this country, and I strongly believe that vaccination is a perfectly reasonable tool to consider among a range of options. I do not want to give the impression that we rule out vaccination or that we think that the widespread culling that took place in the recent epidemic is desirable in future epidemics. We need to look for alternatives in a responsible and considered way, and the Bill gives us the range of options to do so.

Ann Winterton: I seem to recall that vaccination was used in two outbreaks in eastern Europe, one of which was in Macedonia, and it brought the epidemic to a grinding halt. Has the Minister any knowledge of that?
 Will the Minister say something about compensation for animals slaughtered after vaccination? That is an omission about which many people want to be reassured.

Elliot Morley: Yes, I am aware of the Macedonian vaccination programme, but I do not know whether foot and mouth is still endemic there.
 I repeat that vaccination is a very important option which we should not rule out, and we do not intend to do so. Indeed, there may be opportunities for new policies in the future. Even then, one would want to use the new clause not in a piecemeal way, but in a controlled way as part of a proper disease control strategy. 
 The Bill provides the power for compensation for vaccination and slaughter if required. At the moment, we do not have the power to pay compensation. It does not rule out full market compensation, but it may sometimes be necessary to consider a range of options and it is important that the options remain open to the Government. One option might be that for classical swine fever, for which 100 per cent. compensation is not paid in all cases. We need to consider the different circumstances and we do not want to paint ourselves into a corner on any one option. We want the freedom to discuss with the relevant stakeholders the most appropriate way forward.

Ann Winterton: Although the Minister is making a sound point from his point of view, his comments will provide no reassurance to the farming community because it knows that at the end of the day the Ministry has the upper hand. Does he not believe that reassurance on compensation should be provided in the Bill? That has been done elsewhere in connection with compulsory purchase and this is not a dissimilar situation.

Elliot Morley: It very much depends on the circumstances in which a slaughter policy is used. It depends on disease control circumstances and on negotiations that might have taken place with those affected. Nothing in the Bill rules out full market compensation, and it should be negotiated in the circumstances in which such a measure is used. The NFU and other organisations have been very successful in getting a deal for their members and looking after their interests. I am sure that that will continue.
 Taking everything into consideration, although vaccination is a respectable tool in disease control and a matter to which we must give further thought as technology and science progress, the new clause is not workable and I invite the hon. Lady to withdraw it.

Bill Wiggin: Will the Minister consider carefully the research that has been done on vaccination? I am not yet completely convinced that the Dutch policy was started with the understanding that it would continue to slaughter. The Minister alluded to EU intervention. I suspect that that is why the Dutch continued down the slaughter-after-vaccination route.
 The situation in Uruguay is not clear and I should be grateful for any research to be made available, perhaps through the Library, so that we can discover how effective vaccination is in Uruguay. My impression is that it is effective and has prevented the disease from becoming endemic. We import meat from Uruguay, so it is essential to ensure that the policy is effective; if it is not, that could be a source of the infection. It is essential that the research is carried out and I hope that it will take place in the near future.

Ann Winterton: Despite the Minister's reassurance and clarification, we shall press the new clause to a vote.

Derek Conway: The new clause is being discussed with clause 4 stand part, so a Division on the new clause will take place at the end of the Committee's consideration of the clauses in the Bill.
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:--
The Committee divided: Ayes 9, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Column Number: 179

Clause 5Scrapie

Scrapie

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Angela Browning: Clause 5 gives effect to schedule 2, which is an addition to the 1981 Act and specifically covers scrapie. Although I support in broad principle the Government's strategy to reduce scrapie more rapidly from the national flock, I have some concerns about that part of the Bill.
 According to the DEFRA website, scrapie, which is a notifiable disease in all EU countries, is still prevalent throughout the world. It may be useful to the Committee to know that although it has been compulsory since 1993 to notify scrapie, in recent times it has been reported in Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain. It is also a notifiable disease in about 50 per cent. of non-EU countries--that is significant, because they include countries that are waiting to join the EU--such as the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Switzerland, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Moldova and Norway. Cases have been reported in Poland and Hungary, which, like the Czech Republic, are waiting to join the EU, and in many other countries. 
 It is worthy and commendable for us to be engaged in a plan to eliminate scrapie from the national flock, but I have reservations on several counts. We seem to be proceeding apace while there is no suggestion that the Government have sought and obtained similar activity in other EU countries, or addressed the problem that countries such as the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary will join the EU shortly. They are big farming countries and the EU should be discussing the problem with them if they are about to become part of the common agricultural policy. Will the Minister give us some information on what discussions he and his colleagues have had with our EU partners about the countries about to join? 
 As a former agriculture Minister, I recall clearly that in 1996 the suggestion that BSE might have entered the sheep flock was subject to much consideration. There were orders to remove sheep and goat heads and offal; it was thought prudent to exclude those from the human food chain. It was a matter of concern not just in the UK, but in the United States, where research had taken place, albeit on around 20 strains--there are many more than 20 strains of scrapie--and in France, where the Dormont committee, the French equivalent to our Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, advised the French Government to press ahead with measures in the EU. I am not making any complaint about that, but my clear recollection as a Minister was that the issue was seen as an EU-wide problem. I would have expected not just that unilateral action was being taken in the UK, but that the Minister could update us on the science and research in other EU countries and America, which has a keen 
 interest in the matter. We know that New Zealand has eliminated scrapie from its national flock. We should examine what has been done there. 
 I am concerned because this part of the Bill is relevant to farmers, their incomes and their competitiveness. During an earlier sitting, I had a short exchange with the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall. He has, very quietly, just accused me of having a senior moment—just like a young upstart. This, however, is a serious point. The hon. Gentleman clearly said at column 6 of the record of this Committee that he felt it appropriate for the UK to take a lead and go ahead. I have reservations. The NFU note on this part of the Bill says: 
 ''The NFU supports the current voluntary plan for the eradication of scrapie in the sheep flock. The provisions in Schedule 2 are intended to reduce the likely time horizon''. 
We all agree with that. The NFU, however, adds caveats, saying that that would mean that 
''farmers could have to pay for additional sampling and testing of their animals''. 
 We all know the problems of the farming community and farm income. The question of compensation is important. It applies especially to those who have paid a lot of money for breeding stock that is a valuable part of their farm assets, only to find that the rams are devalued because they have been identified as genetically susceptible to scrapie. We must consider how much compensation should apply in such cases, because the problem has an impact on farm income. 
 British farmers would be at a competitive disadvantage if they were not properly compensated or faced additional charges when such procedures were not in place in other countries. If the problem is found to be prevalent and there is a huge reduction in breeding stock, there may be a need to import breeding stock. I am concerned at that, because it may not come from a country that is as vigilant as us in eliminating scrapie from its national herd. I am concerned about several read-acrosses, rather than the general principle incorporated in the Bill, and yet again about how the Government implement their intentions. 
 Another matter concerns me. I am not saying that the Minister is personally responsible, because it is probably his boss, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who feels the need to put out constant warnings about sheep and human health. I know that the Minister will want to defend her, but I would like to read something from the regulatory impact assessment that applies to the clause. Under the section entitled ''Option 3. Making genotyping compulsory'', the direct beneficiaries of putting compulsory genotyping in place are flagged up. They would include: 
 ''Government in terms of being able to safeguard human health and . . . to safeguard the future of the sheep industry as an integral part of the rural economy.'' 
Another beneficiary would be: 
 ''Consumers in terms of safety of produce''.
Again, the Government are taking powers that cannot be described simply as precautionary. Precautionary measures are already in place where sheep carcases and human health are concerned. We have just gone through a three-year experiment that was probably one of the worst cock-ups ever to come out of a Government Department, and have still not had a full explanation of why cattle brains were examined instead of sheep brains. That has set decision making in this area back by several years. 
 According to the Government, the clause relates not only to the elimination of scrapie but to the read-across into potential BSE in sheep and the implications of that for human health. Of course, there must be a precautionary measure, but in their own document associated with the Bill the Government suggest that the measure should be implemented on the ground of safety of produce for consumers. If that argument is so compelling that the measure needs to go into the Bill, why has the Minister not taken additional measures to remove from the human food chain products about which he has grave reservations, but not the science to back them up? The measure is more than just precautionary but it does not have the backing of science. 
 That matter is being looked at by scientists not only in this country, but throughout the world. None of the research—not even from the British experiment that went wrong, the Dormont committee, or the American bioassay experimentation—has been brought into the public domain or consulted on by the Minister, yet here he is claiming, and praying in aid, that the measure will safeguard human health. 
 I am concerned that the measure is about more than removing scrapie from the national flock. It is clearly stated that it is a human health issue. If it is and the Minister genuinely believes that, he has a duty not just to the Committee but to the general public to put into the public domain the information that will explain what he is saying in the documents associated with the Bill. 
 I fully understand—no one understands more than I do; I was at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from 1994 to 1997—that when Ministers receive scientific advice, even as a precautionary measure, they have to act on it. That has been the history. We could discuss at the margins of another debate what has happened in the past over BSE, but it is a fact that every piece of advice that SEAC gave the previous Government on what needed to be done for human health was carried out, certainly during the time when I held office at MAFF. 
 I am having difficulty because I cannot see where the science behind the measure is. Decisions should be based on science. I am the first to admit that science can be flawed, that scientists are not perfect and do not always have the answers and that science develops over years. What was the case five or 10 years ago changes, because scientific work progresses and new techniques and technologies come into play enabling more accurate information to be put into the public domain. However, I cannot see where the science for this measure has come from—nationally or 
 internationally. I cannot see how it is in the public interest for the Government to say that the measure has been introduced for consumers' health without backing that up substantively with the science that has led them to believe that. 
 We could all pluck out of the air 101 pure guesstimates about what might or might not be a dangerous situation. If the Minister is concerned about human health, that is even more reason to include in the Bill measures to prevent imports coming into the country. They are a real risk to human health, which we all can see. 
 I would like the science that justifies the Minister's wording of the measure and other parts of the Bill that follow on from it. I am not opposed to removing scrapie but, yet again, the Government have not thought through some of their proposals, the consequences for those on the farming community and its competitiveness, or the clear signal that they are now giving consumers about the potential danger of eating sheep meat. 
 On Second Reading, I raised a query about the wording in the Food Standards Agency's bulletin about the measure and its consequences for milk and milk products from sheep and goats. I am grateful for the detailed letter that the Minister sent me on that, but if he genuinely believes that there is a risk, he should quantify it. It is extraordinary. A Government advisory committee has flagged up that it may wish to ban milk and milk products from sheep and goats, but the precautionary measure does not apply to that, although it applies to scrapie in general. 
 I should like a lot of information from the Minister on the science behind proposals relating to the consequences of BSE's infecting sheep through scrapie. I should also like him to tell us about scrapie eradication and research findings in other countries. For example, is the Dormont committee still concerned about the problem, and if so what research has convinced it that the problem is on-going? Have the Americans produced any new evidence in the past four or five years to suggest that such an approach is justified? We must have such scientific justification. 
 However much people criticised the actions of the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under the previous Conservative Administration, and even though we sometimes took flak publicly, I believe that we were right to base ministerial decisions on the best scientific advice available at the time. At the moment, however, we appear to be witnessing not scientific decision making but political decision making. I offer the Minister these words of advice. As soon as one departs from the science, however imperfect, and one starts to take political decisions, it becomes difficult to resist the pressure to do the same in other areas. In making such a departure, one opens a Pandora's box for all future ministerial decisions. Decisions should be based on science, and I should like the Minister to explain the scientific basis for this one.

Colin Breed: The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), who has considerable experience of ministerial office and life in general, has raised some very important issues.

Angela Browning: Having accused me of tabling the senior amendment, the hon. Gentleman makes a further reference to my age. Although I am flattered to be told that I have a wide experience of life, I am beginning to be reminded of the poem ''You are Old, Father William''. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough not to refer to my age or other such matters again.

Colin Breed: I shall be only too pleased to do as the hon. Lady asks, although it should be noted that today she has reached an age that I shall reach in a few months' time.
 We are all in broad agreement on scrapie. However, on consulting the DEFRA website when it was first established, I noted that one of DEFRA's aims was the eradication of scrapie. I wondered then whether that aim was established by the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the light of BSE or some other problem that had been hanging around, or by DEFRA in the light of another event. That is an important issue. Scrapie has been with us for some time without causing major problems, so it is important to ask why this decision has been taken now. 
 I take the hon. Lady's point about uncompetitiveness. I held the perhaps somewhat naive view that eradicating the disease might persuade consumers that our produce had been improved and was worthy of commanding a premium. However, perhaps the cost of eradication would outweigh any potential premium. We have seen as much in organics, where additional costs are not necessarily reflected in the premium—

Ann Winterton: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, in that by making food even purer and more reassuring, one might command a premium price. However, is it not true that, as with organics, many consumers merely pay lip service to that principle? On buying products, they generally turn to the cheapest on the supermarket shelf, and if we adopted such a policy we might price ourselves out of the market.

Colin Breed: I agree absolutely that that danger exists. We saw how rapidly public opinion on vaccination moved during the foot and mouth crisis. The fear was that supermarkets would not stock vaccinated meat because their consumers would not want to eat it. Consumers sometimes think in irrational ways. Indeed, it is perhaps irrational to be prepared to eat meat from animals that might be infected with scrapie, although consumers have probably done as much for most of their lives. Nevertheless, there is sometimes a sea-change in public perceptions of food safety, and such a change can prove an important factor. The Minister should explain why now is the right time to accelerate progress of the existing voluntary arrangement, because progress is already being made, although perhaps not as quickly as expected.
 A couple of other points were raised on Second Reading, the first of which concerns the loss of specific breeds' potentially beneficial gene pools. If we want to eradicate scrapie, what do we do with the remaining flocks? Is there an argument for living with scrapie on the ground that UK flocks have gene pools that might prove valuable in future? To eradicate those pools through eradicating scrapie might stack up potential problems. We need to strike a balance. 
 The second point, to which reference has been made, is the question of traceability. We need to push identification and traceability as hard as eradication, if not harder. This is an important issue, and although it would seem prima facie sensible to eradicate scrapie from UK flocks, we need to take a step back and ensure that the time is right. We must be certain that accelerating the eradication process is the sensible way forward, that it will prove economically beneficial, and that we will not lose potentially valuable gene pools.

Ann Winterton: I had not realised that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton is celebrating her birthday today. It is appropriate that the Committee mark the event, but I would not dream of initiating a discussion on how long she has been on this earth, except to say that she has been here for a much shorter time than me. In offering my congratulations, I should also say that hers was a tremendous introduction to the issue of scrapie. She has longstanding experience of these matters, and a great interest in them from a constituency point of view.
 My hon. Friend rightly said that decisions must be based on sound science, and Ben Gill, leader of the NFU, agrees. In suggesting that it was unnecessary for Britain to adopt the tough measures to control scrapie in sheep that France has proposed, he said: 
 ''We have done far more research than the French.'' 
Although there was the terrible debacle concerning sheep brains and cow brains, every single test so far for BSE in newer sheep brains has proved negative. It is difficult to prove a negative, but I wish the press would stop hinting that there may be problems with sheep meat. The evidence is not there, and the public are confident of the product's quality. 
 Although scrapie has been with us for hundreds of years, I accept that the Government want to move on and are consequently introducing a statutory scheme to replace the existing voluntary arrangement. The National Sheep Association has expressed its concerns that the Bill is precipitate: 
 ''The removal of TSE susceptible genes should only be undertaken once an acceptable level of resistance has been bred in.''
 That is a sensible view. It suggests that that 
''should only be considered when the main part of the breed has reached a figure of 75 per cent. resistance (subject to scientific advice and approval).'' 
What is the great hurry? The voluntary scheme might be working too slowly, but there may be ways in which we could hurry it up without introducing a statutory scheme. 
 The National Sheep Association also states that
 ''The current goodwill in the industry towards scrapie eradication needs to be fostered. The genotyping technology is new and has received good support. A great deal will be achieved by the adoption of persuasive as opposed to coercive policies. They only need to be in place as a backstop and for final clearance . . . experience of the coercive approach in other countries has not been successful and a careful approach would be more effective. Timing is of the essence.'' 
Why is there such a huge push on this issue? Is it because the Bill provides an opportunity to introduce new measures on scrapie, or is there a hidden agenda at which we can only guess? 
 The National Sheep Association makes the point that 
 ''During the recent outbreak a number of flocks, which were already highly resistant to these diseases, were slaughtered. While foot and mouth disease would have passed through the sheep with very little direct problems the loss of quality, high health status genetics will take a long time to get back and in many cases might be irreplaceable. For that reason we would strongly recommend seeking alternative acceptable systems which might allow such stock to be removed from potential danger or maybe encouragement given to storage of semen or embryo and also possibly research done to see if foot and mouth disease is actually carried in such semen or embryos and . . . if it can be cleansed (this can be done for some diseases).'' 
It would like to see 
''scientists and breeders working together to reduce to a minimum the potential loss of important genes in the future and to work together to focus on an optimal level solution for the benefit of all concerned.'' 
As I said earlier, the Minister is a great supporter of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which is concerned about the timing of the measures in clause 5. It supports the identification of sheep that are genetically susceptible to scrapie because the disease is endemic in many parts of the national flock and results in poor health and welfare for animals. It also believes that 
 ''The section in the Bill that puts'' 
scrapie eradication 
''on a more formal footing'' 
is not subject to a 
''time indication in the Bill.'' 
Will the Minister say a few words on that subject? Will the programme be phased in over several years? Will there be sufficient time for both sides of the argument to work together to ensure that the programme's benefits, rather than its costs, are felt? 
 The RSPCA states: 
 ''It would be impractical to test every single sheep in the UK within say a year''. 
Obviously, that would be extremely difficult and 
''the effects of testing and then culling every animal that proved positive would be devastating for the lamb industry.'' 
Given the tremendous numbers of animals that have already been lost, this would be a devastating and perhaps unnecessary blow. 
 ''The RSPCA would like to see this testing programme phased in over a period of time . . . test all breeding rams and the year's lambs one year and then focus on a third or fourth group over the next years.'' 
Those are valid points, and I hope that the Minister will have something to say about them.

Elliot Morley: At this stage in the Committee I cannot deliver a lengthy lecture on the history of scrapie and transmissible spongiform encephalopathy. However, because it is the birthday of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, I should be happy to send her a letter updating her on what other countries are doing on the issue. I am sure that she will find such a letter interesting, and she can take it as a birthday present from the Committee.
 The French are proposing measures in relation to their sheep flock that are similar to those proposed in the Bill. As the hon. Member for Congleton rightly said, the French have gone further than us in relation to specified risk material controls on sheep carcasses, which we are not convinced is justified in the light of current scientific knowledge. That demonstrates, however, that the concern is not solely held by the UK, but is an international issue. It would benefit our national flock if it were scrapie free, and there would be commercial advantages, which justifies moving quickly. I must emphasise that the sheep industry has co-operated excellently and has worked with us closely because it shares our aim of eradicating scrapie. 
 There is nothing that we cannot take into account in the quotes from the National Sheep Association that were read out by the hon. Member for Congleton. I remind the Committee that the national scrapie plan was consulted in detail before the Bill. As part of the consultation, we made it clear that at some stage we intended to make the plan compulsory, which was something that was not in dispute during the consultation period. We propose that this will be a backstop measure. We have already discussed the proposal with the sheep industry, and we know that scrapie eradication must take place over several years. 
 We must discuss an appropriate time scale with the industry because the current voluntary timetable is estimated at 10 or 15 years, which we consider to be too long—to be fair to the sheep industry, it also thinks that that is too long. We want to move the plan forward by discussing a realistic time scale. Indeed, we shall begin the process on the basis of voluntary agreements, and the measures may be implemented down the road when we reach a certain percentage. The majority in the sheep industry is keen to co-operate with the eradication programme because it is in its interests and those of consumers. 
 As far as the science is concerned, the request to accelerate the programme came from the Food Standards Agency, which we set up as an independent body to advise us on consumer issues, and we take its opinion seriously. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee has also recommended the eradication programme. I accept the view of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton that the risks are theoretical, but we are in a post-BSE environment and we must learn the lessons of that. 
 Talking of disasters, there has been no bigger disaster for the agricultural sector than BSE. It has touched just about every sector of farming, and the costs have been absolutely horrendous. I was disappointed to hear today arguments similar to the ones that were put previously, such as that there is no 
 absolute proof and that there are economic consequences. We have to follow the recommendations of the Phillips report that we must not rule out the worst-case scenarios and that we must think ahead and not rule anything out. 
 We know that scrapie is transmitted throughout the sheep's body, in a different way from BSE. It is found in the lymph nodes for example, which means that it is present throughout the meat, and therefore will get into the milk. That is why the FSA has concerns about that and why the implications are really quite severe. 
 I repeat again that there is no evidence of BSE in the national flock, and the advice of the Food Standards Agency is that there is no reason why people should stop eating sheep meat —and I have made that point every time I have been interviewed on this issue. Nevertheless, there is a theoretical risk that we must take seriously not only that scrapie might be masking BSE within the national flock, but that BSE is believed to be some form of mutated protein prion. There is always the risk of mutations in relation to existing TSEs. So, it would be to everybody's benefit if we had a scrapie-free flock and a TSE-resistant flock. That is the objective of the Government and the sheep industry, so there is no disagreement between us. We will discuss with industry representatives the most realistic and appropriate time scale for achieving this.

Ann Winterton: The Committee is reassured by what the Minister said about co-operation with the industry and the timing of the introduction of the scheme. However, there are two important points to take into account. First and foremost, it is important that other European countries undertake the same type of programmes as we do. It is hardly likely that we will import much sheep meat because we produce so much of our own, which is of the highest quality, but we do not act unilaterally in respect of marketing, so what we do here should also apply to other European countries. The Food Standards Agency, which looks into the wholesomeness of food produced in the United Kingdom, cannot look into food that is imported into this country, although I understand that it is trying to widen its remit in that regard.

Elliot Morley: The FSA does have a role in relation to the quality of all food in our country. Of course there are food regulations within the single market, but that does not mean that the FSA cannot comment on any particular issue. As far as other European economies are concerned, I know that the EU Standing Veterinary Committee is looking seriously at TSEs, and may well want to pursue these matters on an EU-wide basis. I strongly support that, but it does not stop us taking action. Historically, we have the biggest problem with BSE in Europe, so we cannot ignore the potential risk that the kind of feed that is believed to be linked with BSE, could have been fed to sheep in the early 1990s.
 A range of experiments is continuing. The reasons for the failure of the Institute of Animal Health experiment are set out in the independent audit, which is in the Library. It explains what went wrong with that particular experiment. We should not be too hard on the Institute of Animal Health, however. Generally speaking, it is a good organisation that does first-class work for the Government. It has an international reputation and it has expressed some doubts about the providence of that particular experiment, given that it involved a brain-pool collected in the early 1990s. Basically, the experiment was conducted on a jar of brain paste. It is probably not so easy to differentiate between a jar of bovine brain paste and a jar of ovine brain paste, although I accept that the independent audit rightly pointed to issues of labelling and traceability, which the independent audits quite rightly pointed out. 
 In relation to the general principle, I understand the concerns that have been expressed and can reassure Committee members that we want to proceed with scrapie eradication with the co-operation of the sheep industry and we are confident that we can achieve that.

Angela Browning: I have two questions for the Minister. First, having decided to proceed at such a pace—I say that not as a criticism—he seems to be rather uncertain about what is happening in the rest of Europe. There must have been discussions with the Agriculture Commissioner and the Commission's veterinary committees. Can he give us more tangible information? Have other EU countries decided to take a different approach? Is that why we are not moving forward together?
 Secondly, in the light of the results of the Institute of Animal Health experiment, how do the Government intend to replicate that experimentation? I do not mean that they should necessarily carry out the same tests—things may have moved on—but there is concern about the lack of science in establishing whether or not BSE has entered the sheep population. What will happen next in terms of experimentation?

Elliot Morley: That point goes beyond the scope of the Committee, but I shall be happy to send the hon. Lady details of the five-point action plan on sheep TSEs that I have announced.
 With regard to other European countries, I have already said that the French are considering taking exactly the same steps as we are taking. I am not aware of the latest up-to-date situation in all the countries, but I know that they have been discussing the matter, as has the Standing Veterinary Committee, and I will be pleased to update the hon. Lady on the progress that has been made.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful for the Minister's comments, especially in the light of the Meat and Livestock Commission's lamb lunch the week before last. The sheep farmers there shared his sentiments about eradicating scrapie from the national flock and showed a typical bulldog—perhaps I should say sheepdog—spirit in doing so.
 It was incumbent on the Government not to lump such an important measure in with the foot and mouth-preventing legislation. That sends out a damaging signal to people abroad, who may think that the Bill is designed to eradicate not only foot and mouth disease, but scrapie and anything else. That might appear to be a rash marketing move, given the images that people have seen on television of bodies being burned and the huge cost to our countryside and tourist industry. We should try to do everything that we can to encourage people to buy British and not to think that everything here is diseased, which of course it is not. Huge steps have been taken in marketing light lamb. It is a great shame that that was necessary, but in terms of the impact of foot and mouth on our exports it represents one of the minor success stories. 
 A matter that arises later in the Bill but is relevant here is the electronic identification of scrapie genotype-sensitive sheep. In my limited experience of sheep, they tend to lose almost any identification tag unless it is a bolus injected into them, and even those can be lost. That worries me, given that the Bill generally takes a draconian attitude to people who in any way deviate from the straight and narrow, regardless of whether it is their fault. Owners who have lost electronic tags through no fault of their own may be placed in a difficult position. 
 In the light of the foot and mouth crisis, it would be difficult for a voluntary scheme for the eradication of scrapie to have been as successful as the Minister might have hoped, especially as at any stage a farmer could expect his animals to be contiguously culled. Eradicating scrapie may have been placed lower down the priority list than it should have been. The overriding commercial advantage of not having scrapie is not being punished for having another disease. I therefore welcome this part of the Bill, but to legislate before consultation and discussion puts people at a disadvantage in respect of speed of progress. I am sorry that the Minister was not more accurate in his predictions of how quickly scrapie will be removed under the Bill. 
 I am also concerned that, once again, we will be dealing with the dodgy science that gave us the image of a Minister feeding a hamburger to his daughter; perhaps we will see a Minister feeding a kebab to his cat. I hope that significant steps are taken to encourage people to eat lamb that is now scrapie-free and that it is not simply lumped with earlier foot and mouth images. I wonder what steps the Government will take to encourage people to eat more lamb. Perhaps Tim nice-but-dim will appear on television more frequently—he has been advertising how simple it is to cook and eat lamb.

Colin Breed: We have had a useful debate on the principles behind the Bill and I thank the Minister for his helpful comments.
 The terminology and wording of the parts of the Bill that deal with the provisions for scrapie are in stark contrast to the rest of it. The Minister said that the scrapie regulations would be the product of a mixture of consultation and the stick and carrot method and that there would be a backstop element. That is 
 reasonable, and the word ''reasonable'' even appears frequently in the Bill. It makes me wonder when that was written compared with the rest of the Bill. The rest is anything but carrot and stick: it is all stick, and a big stick at that. The provisions for scrapie regulations are written in a much more reasonable manner, and are in stark contrast to other provisions.

Angela Browning: I do not think that we have received the reassurance that we sought from the Minister on the economic arguments and the impact on farmers. There has been broad approval for the thrust of this part of the Bill, which will speed up the eradication of scrapie from the national flock. I support the clause but I look forward to reading the Minister's bundle of letters that he has now promised me—I hope that they will be tied up with a nice ribbon.
 Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 - Adjusted compensation

Ann Winterton: I beg to move amendment No. 148, in page 15, line 23, at end insert—
'(e) provide for the Minister to defray any costs of the keeper in respect of the identification and testing of any sheep;'.

Derek Conway: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 43, in page 16, line 42, leave out sub-paragraphs (c) and (d).

Ann Winterton: These are small but important amendments. Amendment No. 148 aims to assist owners and establish that those who have their sheep tested for scrapie should not have to meet the costs of any tests, bearing in mind that it would be a statutory scheme and not voluntary. Comments thus far suggest that most hon. Members support moves to hasten the eradication of scrapie in the national flock. However, concerns have been expressed, so we seek clarification on having provisions for the Minister to defray any of the keeper's costs for the identification and testing of sheep.
 Under new section 36B, regulations can be made to genotype sheep and to keep a record of that. The new section also refers to electronic identification devices, which I assume are the boluses of which my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin) spoke. There may be considerable costs, but if the Government and the Department introduce a national scheme, costs should be brought down to the minimum. Nevertheless, the Government should pay for them. I am glad that they will ensure that electronic identification devices are used because tagging is not an option and the new plastic ear tags for cattle have proved extremely difficult to use because they come out so easily. New boluses and technologies should make the scheme much cheaper to run. 
 New section 36B(2)(d) refers to requiring 
''the issuing and keeping of certificates recording the genotypes of sheep.''
If one uses the new electronic devices, it should be possible to keep the resulting certification and paperwork to a minimum. The farming community are literally going under because of the amount of paperwork that must be dealt with. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when setting up the statutory scheme. 
 Amendment No. 43 seeks to omit sub-paragraphs (c) and (d) under the appeals structure and refers to the period after an appeal has been granted. The amendment would omit sub-paragraph (c), which requires the appellant to meet reasonable costs of carrying out further samples or tests, and sub-paragraph (d), which refers to the recovery of such costs. It is extraordinary that such a position arises only after a farmer has appealed to an assessor and the assessor has allowed the appeal and directed that a further test should be carried out on the sheep. It is fundamentally unjust that successful farmers should be penalised in such a way, so the two sub-paragraphs should be dropped from the Bill. To bear such costs is a disincentive to the farmer to carry on and I hope that the Minister will look on the amendments favourably.

Elliot Morley: I can give the hon. Lady an assurance on amendment No. 148. The initial sampling and identification of animals by inspectors will be paid for by the Department, as described under the national scrapie plan. The only activities that keepers will have to undertake will be the provision of assistance to inspectors. For example, they may have to round up sheep and retain records of the genotypes of sheep, but those activities are likely to incur minimal cost. We are not contemplating placing a large cost on the industry; the bulk of it will be borne by the Department.
 On amendment No. 43, it is true that powers in the Bill could require appellants to meet the reasonable costs of activities connected with further genotyping samples and tests. In appeals of that kind, it is not unreasonable that the Department has the facility to recover some costs if it so chooses, bearing in mind that the initial work is paid for by the Department and the taxpayer.

Ann Winterton: I welcome the undertaking that the Minister has given on amendment No. 148 that the Ministry will pay for the identification and testing of sheep, as at present. I think that he made the point that the electronic devices such as boluses will be paid for by the farmer.

Elliot Morley: I did not make that point, but they will be.

Ann Winterton: They, and the certification, will be paid for by the farmer. The Minister said that the costs would be minimal. In the introduction of a national statutory scheme, can he give an assurance, given the Government's huge purchasing power, that the costs really will be minimal?

Elliot Morley: I certainly can. I believe that a large-scale electronic identification scheme will considerably reduce the costs of the electronic devices. I am a great
 supporter of electronic identification, which brings the industry a range of benefits. There are various kinds of electronic device including the bolus, carried in the stomach, and electronic ear-tagging. We will want to consult with the industry on what it thinks is the most appropriate. I do not have a fixed view, but I would have thought that the stomach bolus is probably the best method.

Bill Wiggin: I am grateful for the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend's question. It emphasises the importance of the amendment, because any industry that is asked what sort of tag it would like to put on its animals is bound to choose the most cost effective. Under the amendment, the Government would have a vested interest in ensuring that the cheapest option and the best option are one and the same. Otherwise, the cost will be borne by the industry. We must ensure that the industry not only has the best tag, but does not end up footing the Bill for the most expensive.

Ann Winterton: I think that the Minister has covered most of the points that have been raised, and bearing his reassurances in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Colin Breed: I beg to move amendment No. 92, in page 17, line 34, leave out ''reasonable excuse'' and insert ''reason''.

Derek Conway: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 93, in page 17, line 40, leave out ''reasonable excuse'' and insert ''reason''.

Colin Breed: The amendments are minimal, but are intended to plead the case that farmers do not make excuses, but have reasons. I could not remove the word ''excuse'' without also taking out ''reasonable'' and putting in ''reason''. It is a small point, but farmers rightly believe that their reasons are sometimes strong—they pressed this point during the FMD outbreak—and based on local knowledge. They are not excuses, but reasons based on experience, knowledge and the things with which they have become familiar.
 We should not perpetuate the idea that farmers are making excuses for what they are trying to do. I entirely accept that they would have to prove their reasons, but if we change the wording to ''reason'', it removes from the Bill the slight tone of treating farmers as if they are whingeing people, trying to make excuses rather than having sincere reasons for, perhaps, objecting, or putting forward their case.

Elliot Morley: The term ''reasonable excuse'' is used because it is a readily understood legal term. It is understood by the courts and is used to determine what is reasonable in the context of the particular circumstances of the charge before the court. The amendment would create confusion about the nature of events, because the provision of a ''reason'' does not necessarily mean a reason that is reasonable in the eyes of the court. The amendments would thus provide for
 an uncertainty in the law. Although I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, they would confuse the issue because the existing terminology is understood.

Colin Breed: I am happy to accept that assurance from the Minister, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Colin Breed: I beg to move amendment No. 94, in page 18, leave out lines 1 to 3.
 Again, this is a simple amendment. It would remove paragraph 4, which is frankly unnecessary and part of the big stick approach. The possibility that anyone could in any way be construed to be obstructing an inspector could have a very wide interpretation. For example, merely parking a car inconveniently could be construed as a direct attempt to obstruct. For that to be counted as an offence is a draconian measure too far. The previous paragraphs are perfectly adequate in terms of dealing with offences. It is the sort of catch-all provision that can sometimes be used inappropriately, and it adds nothing significant in terms of ensuring that the Bill is properly enacted and complied with. It is a paragraph too far, and I should like it to be removed.

Angela Browning: The amendment has a read-across to article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which states:
 ''Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence . . . There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law''. 
I suspect that the Minister will pray in aid that the public body or individual would be applying the law as it stood. However, our experience of the foot and mouth crisis provides clear examples of people whose homes were violated by people in authority in a manner that was in excess of what one would expect from such people. There were some extremely distressing situations. I do not deny that when people are emotionally upset they, too, can behave uncharacteristically. However, it happened once too often in the last outbreak for us not to be concerned about how it will be handled in future. If the authority of officials is increased through the Bill, and we see more of the same with their handling of such matters, many of them will be judged by the courts to be in breach of article 8 of the convention. 
 The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall was right to raise his concerns. We have heard nothing from the Minister about what lessons have been learned or what guidelines will be introduced on another occasion, nor about the whole way in which the matter was dealt with by people who must unfortunately be categorised as officials, although they were not necessarily all from one official body. We saw examples on our television screens of the problems that arose, and I spoke personally to many people in Devon who had had article 8 breached in their own homes. That cannot be right.

Elliot Morley: I understand the concerns of the hon. Members for South-East Cornwall and for Tiverton and Honiton. Wording such as this is not the way in which one wants to deal with any kind of programme. We have all agreed that the scrapie programme is in the interests of the sheep industry, which supports it. Sadly, however, it is not impossible that a handful of people, perhaps singly, will not co-operate, for whatever reason. The scrapie programme will cost the Government millions of pounds to implement. I accept that the sheep industry will be inconvenienced in the course of the eradication programme but it is for its long-term benefit. It would be quite wrong if everything—the expense, the co-operation, the work and the inconvenience—were then put at risk by a tiny number of people who would not co-operate.
 If we do not have this provision within the Bill, we will probably have to go to the courts and get it sorted out. It would be better to have this provision from the very beginning to deal with such eventualities. I hope they will not happen, but we cannot rule out the fact that a small number of people will try to obstruct the progress of this programme. That cannot be tolerated.

Bill Wiggin: Surely this provision is irrelevant if the number of people causing problems will be small. The Minister will still have to take them to court, and it will not make a great deal of difference if it is in the Bill, so it is entirely superfluous.

Elliot Morley: It does make a difference, because going to court is time-consuming and potentially expensive. This is a measure that has widespread support. I do not believe that we would have to use the measures that are laid out in the Bill. I very much hope that we will not have to use them, but if we are taking such measures, we need to think about all eventualities.

Colin Breed: I think it is because it is in this part of the Bill that I take most exception. Other parts of the Bill apply to measures taken over 24 hours or 48 hours, but this part applies to scrapie eradication over a number of years. So to go rushing off to court because a few sheep are not going to be castrated, is not really the point. That is why I think this part of the Bill is unnecessary for this particular aspect of the issue. If scrapie were something whizzing through a flock, and we had to zip off to get things done in a hurry, I might have some sympathy, but, quite frankly, we know that it will take ages.
 Yes, there may be some people who will not comply with that provision, but all the other provisions cover that possibility. Parts I to III make it very clear, even if I accept the reference to ''reasonable excuse''. This is just a sledgehammer, which is unnecessary in a restricted timeframe, while talking about scrapie.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman made a reasonable point—

Colin Breed: It is a reasonable excuse.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that it will take some years to implement this programme. That is absolutely true. I return to the point that we will discuss with, and consult, the industry about the appropriate time scale required to implement the programme. In that respect, we are talking about reserved powers. If there are to be reserved powers, then all possibilities should be considered. This provision should be seen as reserved power, certainly not a power to be used to go rushing in and threatening people. I do not believe that will be necessary, or that such a provision will necessarily be used. If we have reserved powers, then we cover all eventualities and that is what this provision is designed to do.

Colin Breed: I think that we can put that on to just about every piece of legislation—that at the end of the day, if people do not comply, then of course we will to make certain that they commit an offence eventually.
 We need to decide what the threshold of reasonableness is. In respect to the scrapie provision, which is what we are talking about—not the emergency of the foot and mouth outbreak—the schedule is unnecessarily big stick and draconian. The hon. Member from Tiverton and Honiton raised the issue of human rights. We should vote on the amendment because it has connotations for the future. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9

Question accordingly negatived.

Ann Winterton: I beg to move amendment No. 130, in page 18, line 6, leave out ''at all reasonable times'' and insert ''between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.''.

Derek Conway: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No 131, in page 18, line 11, leave out from ''Subsection (1)'' to ''24'' and insert ''only applies when''.
 No 115, in clause 7, page 4, line 16, after ''inspector,'' insert 
''having given a minimum of four hours' notice''.
 No. 98, in page 4, line 16, after ''any'', insert ''reasonable''. 
 No. 105, in clause 8, page 5, line 26, after ''premises'', insert ''at any reasonable time''.

Ann Winterton: We now come to some interesting and constructive amendments relating to power of entry where cases of scrapie are concerned. They suggest the modifying of some of the powers that will be given to the Minister so that when his inspector, or ''a constable''—I assume that that means a police constable—arrives at a farm, safeguards have been built in to ensure that farmers are not placed at too great a disadvantage.
 I accept that, in the eradication of scrapie, timing might not be so critical as when inspectors and others arrived at farms during the foot and mouth epidemic. However, farmers co-operating in this eradication programme should have certain courtesies extended to them. Those are contained in the amendments. 
 Amendment No. 130 would place on the inspector a timeframe in which he could 
''enter any premises for the purpose of— 
 (a) carrying out any function he has under or in pursuance of this Part, or 
 (b) ascertaining whether any such function should be exercised.'' 
Although new section 36G states: 
 ''An inspector or a constable may at all reasonable times enter any premises'' 
for the purposes that I have just described, we believe, as stated in amendment No. 130, that we should stipulate that that should happen within a reasonable working day, for example, nine to five. The farmer would then know that the inspector or constable would turn up between those times, and he could make appropriate arrangements to deal with his other work at other times, and be available during those hours. 
 Amendment No. 131 would ensure that, when an inspector entered a premises, notice would be given to the occupier. Inspectors and Ministry officials often just turn up at premises to undertake their duties, but in this day and age, a farmer should be given some notice so that he can say whether it is convenient, or can arrange for his staff to be present if he cannot be. This is another modest little amendment to improve the situation. 
 Under amendment No. 115, an inspector may enter premises to assess animals to see whether they should be slaughtered, only if 
''a minimum of four hours' notice'' 
is given. Farmers have many difficulties these days, and are hard pressed looking after their stock, dealing with paperwork and 101 other things. If an inspector is to turn up to see whether some of a flock should be slaughtered under the scrapie eradication scheme, it is only a matter of courtesy to give the farmer or owner such a period of notice. Four hours is a reasonable timeframe. 
 Amendment No. 98 would allow an inspector to enter only ''reasonable'' premises. There have been debates and mini debates about the word ''reasonable'' throughout the passage of the Bill. I wonder whether an inspector can insist on going into any kind of premise, any part of a farm and any kind of buildings, including the farmhouse. For the purposes of clarification, ''reasonable'', as far as an inspector's duties are concerned, is an adequate description.
 Amendment No. 105 restricts the time at which an inspector may enter premises, in this case to test for foot and mouth disease antibodies, to ''at any reasonable time''. I am trying to impress on the face of the Bill that any inspector, constable or Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs official must ensure that the farmer is dealt with courteously, that the arrangements are made in advance and that co-operation is requested at all times. These simple amendments address the concerns that have been expressed to us.

Colin Breed: I support all the points made by the hon. Member for Congleton. We are trying to provide an element of reasonableness into these important powers that are potentially explosive because they cover people coming into one's home or private premises, which returns us to the idea that the Englishman's home is his castle. We must be careful because the powers could be counter-productive, something about which several members of the Committee know from experience. Restricting the hours in which inspectors can call and ensuring that they provide notice would allow people to co-operate. If one does not give notice, it may take longer than two hours to make an inspection. Calling at 6 o'clock in the morning does not guarantee that a farmer will not be on their way to market or travelling to another part of their farm. It would help everybody if there were a notice period, and in a 24 or 48-hour timeframe, four hours does not seem especially problematic.
 The amendments would place the onus back on DEFRA and its inspectors. We have had a small debate about reasonable excuses, and perhaps DEFRA inspectors should recognise that they must also have a reasonable excuse to call at 3 o'clock in the morning and demand that people instantaneously jump up. The onus of reasonableness must be a two-way process because inspectors, like farmers, must have a reasonable excuse. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander, although that introduces into the debate another animal that could be slaughtered. Because we are dealing with private premises and homes, the Bill could be seen to trespass into people's private domains. Proper notice and reasonable times of day and night ought to be part of the way in which we seek the co-operation of those whose support will be vital. I hope that the Minister will accede to these modest yet helpful amendments.

Richard Bacon: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton in endorsing this group of amendments. I shall comment on amendment No. 131, which concerns the question of the schedule applying only when notice of intended entry has been given.
 Throughout the foot and mouth crisis—I have alluded to this before—farmers' distrust of the Ministry was a problem. That lack of trust was accompanied on many occasions by a lack of communication. The onus is on DEFRA to step up its level of communication and raise its game in 
 communicating its plans to farmers. Given that history, it is entirely reasonable that farmers should be given notice of intended entry. 
 As the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall said, we are discussing private property and privacy. I agree with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton in relation to an earlier amendment to article 8, which concerned people's right peaceably to enjoy their homes. I shall not allude to my hon. Friend's age—my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton did that once and got away with it, but I shall not stray further down that path. I shall not trespass on that territory, at least not without giving notice of my intention in advance. 
 The Ministry failed to engender trust or communication. The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall pointed out that although we are discussing scrapie there are cases in relation to foot and mouth where no notice was given and Ministry officials clomped on to people's property in their size 12s without having given adequate notice. People resisted because of that approach, and in many cases they were right. Healthy animals would have been slaughtered if the Ministry had been allowed to act in that way. This morning, I talked to a farmer who explained how he was told that his farm was a dangerous foot and mouth contact and that he was to be inspected every other day for 21 days. Suddenly, without any prior warning or communication, he stopped being subject to inspections every other day and became somebody whose animals were immediately to be culled. Of course, he resisted and barricaded himself in. As a result of his actions, the Ministry saved itself between £1.5 million and £2 million of taxpayers' money because it did not have to compensate him for the capital value of his sheep and cattle, and the Department for Work and Pensions did not have to pay out benefit to the six people whom he would have had to lay off. This was all because he resisted, and he was right to do so. 
 The schedule will make resistance more difficult. My previous example concerned foot and mouth, but we are discussing only scrapie, which, as the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall pointed out, will take years to eliminate. The provisions in the schedule are unnecessarily draconian, but the amendments are reasonable, and I hope that the Committee will accept them.

Bill Wiggin: I remind Labour Members of their comments when the Committee met at 8.55 am: they complained how unreasonable it was that we should meet so early without coffee. This heated Room is not a windswept Welsh hillside, and we did not meet to slaughter or castrate our pets or livestock. I refer Labour Members to their complaint that 8.55 am was an unreasonable hour and I urge them seriously to consider whether they should vote against such an important amendment.
 As we shall be paying inspectors to go out and visit people, we should be careful not to pay them overtime for visiting outside the hours of nine to five. In a previous amendment, we decided to exclude any elements of reasonable behaviour and make the 
 obstruction of an inspector an offence, so it is incumbent on us to ensure that, once catch-all elements are included in the Bill, we provide adequate protection to ensure that people are not offending unnecessarily. That is why the amendment is so crucial. 
 The valid point was made that, unless people visit at a reasonable time—perhaps between nine and five—there is a very good chance that they might get lost in the more wild and woolly parts of Wales or Herefordshire. It is extremely easy to get lost in such places, and even if an appointment is made for a reasonable time, there is a very good chance that one could start looking for the place in question at nine and not find it by five. 
 I should also like to tell the Committee about my mother-in-law, who keeps a flock of Hebridean sheep in Oxfordshire. It is incumbent on the Committee to ensure that, if her sheep are inspected for the scrapie genotype, she is not disturbed before nine or after five. It is essential that we protect sheep owners, shepherds and others who might wish to co-operate with the Government's laudable attempt to eradicate scrapie from the national flock, by preventing them from committing an offence—

Patrick Hall: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could enlighten me. I am not a farmer, but I thought that most farmers did not restrict their working day to between the hours of nine and five.

Bill Wiggin: I was talking about my mother-in-law, and with Christmas coming it is essential to remember this important lady. Realistically, we are talking about all people who own sheep. Although we know that farmers get up very early in the morning and perhaps work until late at night, it is not right to assume that they are available all the time.

Richard Bacon: Does my hon. Friend agree that farmers get up between five and six in the morning—sometimes they get up in the middle of the night—and work until late at night not because they want to accommodate the needs of departmental officials, which are not urgent and could be satisfied through an appointment, but because they are desperately trying to keep their businesses afloat?

Bill Wiggin: That is absolutely right. Perhaps the Minister will say how much quicker scrapie could be eradicated if officials were able to call earlier in the morning than nine. It is ridiculous to pretend that, in order to cut a 15-year programme down to two years, it is necessary for inspectors to call earlier than nine or later than five. The amendment is not only reasonable but important. It would counter the Bill's draconian nature, and help it to protect the income of sheep owners and the future of their industry.

Elliot Morley: These amendments are far too prescriptive for our own staff and for many farmers. Restricting entry times to between nine and five might not suit many farmers. Many might prefer inspectors to visit before nine or after five—it depends on the
 circumstances. It is right to say that the scrapie eradication programme does not constitute an emergency; it is a phased programme that will take place over some years. In general, it is important to arrange an appointment with the farmer in question, and that is what our staff will do. One does not need to write such things down in a prescriptive fashion.
 Amendments Nos. 115, 98 and 105 relate not to scrapie but to FMD, which constitutes a disease control issue. It is unreasonable to ask for four hours' notice when disease control and trying to stop spread are paramount. I cannot support the amendment.

Ann Winterton: Is there not always an assumption, especially with the scrapie eradication programme, that the farmer must be available when it is convenient for the official to call? The programme hinges on what the official must do rather than what the farmer must do. There is an assumption that the farmer will be there anyway, so people can turn up to do whatever has to be done and the farmer must drop every other chore. The amendments would put some formality into the system.

Elliot Morley: The amendments are too prescriptive and it is not right to say that the thrust of the scrapie plan is built around the convenience of our own staff and inspectors. Of course we must co-operate with farmers and that might involve rounding up a flock, for example, so of course advance notice would have to be given. However, the amendments are too restrictive; they are unnecessary as far as scrapie is concerned and dangerous as far as FMD is concerned.

Colin Breed: I want to speak about the four hours' notice. I did not pluck that from the air, so let us consider the practicalities and the amount of time between DEFRA deciding to inspect a farm and arriving on the farm. The decision could be notified by telephone and the inspectors might happen to be adjacent to the farm. In those extraordinary circumstances, they could walk in within three minutes. That is not usually the case, not least because they sometimes go to the wrong holding or cannot find it. However, if the farm is identified from their headquarters, is it impossible at that moment to give some notice? It may be three hours from when they get into the Land Rover until they arrive. Four hours' notice may delay the inspectors a little, but that may happen anyway and it would give the farmer a little extra time. I am sure that some wonderful flow chart shows that without four hours' notice a huge additional number of animals could be culled, but a significant amount of the four hours might be used by the inspectors in travelling to a farm holding. Four hours' notice would not necessarily cause a four-hour delay. The delay might be only half an hour because it might take three and a half hours to get to the holding.

Ann Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is making some valid comments. Is it not a fact that during the recent foot and mouth epidemic, four hours would have been considered a very short period, because
 stock were hanging around with the disease for 48 hours, never mind four hours. The amendment seems modest.

Colin Breed: I entirely agree. It might even be helpful. If the farmer received four hours' notice, he might feel co-operative and start to gather the animals in so that the cull could start almost immediately. Alternatively, the inspectors might arrive at a farm with no notice and have to wait around for two, three or four hours. In terms of the totality of what we are trying to do and introducing sensible restrictions, we should try to balance the need get the disease under control with reasonableness for those who are suffering a traumatic situation anyway. I believe that that could be done without causing significant delays and problems. Problems might arise if inspectors happened to be in the area at the time, but generally that would not be the case, so we should consider that this is a reasonable amendment to the way in which draconian powers are sometimes implemented.

Ann Winterton: I do not want to say much in summing up because the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall and others have supported the amendment. If the Department is trying to build a new relationship with the farming community and ensure that, in the introduction of a statutory scrapie eradication programme, full co-operation is achieved, the amendment does go some way to ensure that farmers are shown the consideration that they deserve. We must therefore press the amendment.
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9

Question accordingly negatived.

Colin Breed: I beg to move amendment No. 95, in page 18, line 18, leave out ''or third''.

Derek Conway: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 96, in page 18, line 26, leave out ''or a refusal is expected''.
 No. 97, in page 18, leave out lines 30 and 34. 
 No. 156, in page 18, leave out lines 31 to 33. 
 No. 157, in page 19, leave out lines 3 to 5. 
 No. 111, in clause 6, page 3, line 26, leave out 
''or a refusal is expected''. 
No. 112, in clause 6, page 3, leave out lines 30 to 34.
 No. 133, in clause 6, page 3, line 31, leave out paragraph (a). 
 No. 134, in clause 6, page 3, line 34, at end insert 
''and uncontactable during the 24 hour period from when the warrant was granted.''
 No. 135, in clause 6, page 3, at end insert— 
 ''(6A) If animals are mistakenly slaughtered while the occupier is absent, the farmer shall receive compensation at the level of 200 per cent. of market value.''
 No. 113, in clause 6, page 4, leave out lines 3 to 5. 
 No. 40, in clause 6, page 4, line 4, leave out ''such'' to ''for'' and insert 
''personal assistance as is reasonably necessary''.
 No. 89, in clause 6, page 4, line 4, after ''reasonably needs'', insert 
''and that that person can normally give''.
 No. 99, in clause 7, page 4, line 24, leave out ''or third''. 
 No. 100, in clause 7, page 4, line 31, leave out 
''or a refusal is expected''. 
No. 101, in clause 7, page 4, leave out lines 35 to 39. 
 No. 138, in clause 7, page 4, leave out line 38. 
 No. 149, in clause 7, page 4, line 39, at end insert 
''and the inspector can demonstrate that all reasonable efforts to contact the occupier have been made.''
 No. 102, in clause 7, page 5, leave out lines 6 to 8. 
 No. 139, in clause 7, page 5, line 6, leave out ''any person'' and insert 
''the owner and any person employed by the owner.''
 No. 41, in clause 7, page 5, line 6, leave out ''such'' to ''for'' in line 7 and insert 
''personal assistance as is reasonably necessary''.
 No. 73, in clause 7, page 5, line 7, after ''needs'', insert 
''and that that person can normally give.''
 No. 106, in clause 8, page 6, line 3, leave out ''or third''. 
 No. 119, in clause 8, page 6, leave out lines 14 to 18. 
 No. 75, in clause 8, page 6, line 30, after ''needs'', insert 
''and that that person can normally give''.

Colin Breed: I shall begin by referring to the first couple of amendments.

Patrick Hall: May we have four hours' notice?

Colin Breed: It may take more than four hours to get through them—I give notice of that now.
 Amendment No. 95 and subsequent amendments relate to the reasonableness of trying to make the Bill correct. Some of them address the wording of the third condition and that of the second condition, which refers to the warrants when a justice of the peace is involved. The first condition, which states that 
''there are reasonable grounds for a person mentioned in section 36G(1) to enter the premises for the purpose there mentioned'' 
and the fact that a justice of the peace should be involved, is taken as read. The second condition states that 
''admission to the premises has been refused or a refusal is expected''.
The subject of one amendment is the phrase ''or a refusal is expected''. That is a subjective statement. The idea that, at some unearthly hour that the JP has picked to give a warrant, one will be persuaded that a recalcitrant person would refuse entry and so ''refusal is expected'' and the warrant can go ahead is a nice catch-all. However, it means that even if one cannot demonstrate that a refusal has already taken place, one could say that one expected a refusal to take place. There seems to be no means of ensuring that there is such evidence to demonstrate that a refusal ''is expected'', but rather that the mere fact that it is expected should be part of the conditions.

Ann Winterton: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is thinking of some of the examples that we saw during the foot and mouth crisis, where the decision and the intention to slaughter was so unreasonable that certain farms attracted the attention of a wide range of people who went to give support to the farmers. In those circumstances, especially if it had been in the papers or on television that, for whatever purpose, those people were collectively supporting the farmer against entry, the anticipation of refusal might almost be self-explanatory. Consequently, where there was a wholly unjustified intention to enter the premises to slaughter animals, the farmer would necessarily be denied the sort of back-up that, rightly, saved many farms during the previous crisis.

Colin Breed: I agree entirely. The Minister has accepted that the measures are being introduced in the light of everything that occurred last time to ensure that next time every possible obstruction is dealt with, however blunt the instrument in terms of wording, and the legitimate concerns of people at the farm gates can be swept aside on the assumption that a warrant will be issued and anyone who obstructs it will be subject to an offence.
 It is one thing to take action on the basis of clear evidence, expressed in writing or in some other way, that a refusal has taken place. Merely to say that a refusal ''is expected'' and to assume that the second condition has thereby been fulfilled is going a bit too far. 
 The third condition is that 
''an application for admission or giving notice of intention to apply for a warrant would defeat the object of entering''. 
That is an interesting phrase, which could mean many different things. According to the Bill, it means if 
''the case is one of urgency, or . . . the premises are unoccupied or the occupier is absent.'' 
That aspect needs to be teased out by the Minister. How does one ensure that the premises are unoccupied? 
 The premises we are talking about are not a house or a barn, but a farm. I expect that many members of the Committee have visited a farm, knocked on the door, which is open, shouted inside, found that nobody seems to be in, although the fire is going, then spent the next quarter of an hour trying to find 
 someone. Nowadays, regrettably, there are so few people working on huge areas of land that they could be almost anywhere. How much time and effort that will be made to find out whether the premises are indeed unoccupied or the occupier is absent? Absent from what? Absent from where one expects him to be? Absent from the farm socially? Perhaps he is on his way to the DEFRA office to try to sort something out. Whatever the situation, it will be assumed that he is absent, so it is perfectly okay to get a warrant to go zooming into his farm.

Angela Browning: The farmer could even be lured elsewhere—perhaps to a DEFRA office—to create the certainty that the farm would then be unoccupied.

Colin Breed: Farmers are often lured to DEFRA in a vain attempt to get some answers to their questions and find out what the hell is going on.
 The powers are such that almost anything that could be construed as being the smallest possible hurdle to the intervention of someone coming on to the farm—

David Drew: The powers are extreme, and I accept that they should be used only in the most extreme circumstances. In one case, a dealer—a major dealer in this country—was known to absent himself for the best part of 24 hours so that he could drive up the compensation. I accept that that was a foot and mouth incident and we are now discussing scrapie, procedures for which are more organised, but there have been occasions when, against the wishes of the vast majority of farmers, people have decided that their personal income was more important than everyone else. We must bear such circumstances in mind.

Colin Breed: I entirely agree that there are always such individual cases. That can happen in the context of almost any piece of legislation. We are trying to formulate measures that are in equity and reasonable. If we tried to address literally every single possible obstruction, the legislation would have to be even more draconian.
 The conditions for the warrant should be clear, reasonable and able to be properly understood. The third condition is, I think, a hurdle too far. By removing the subjective nature of ''a refusal is expected'' in condition two, it is still clear that if there has been refusal to enter a premises, a warrant should be issued. I am happy to accept that that is right, but including the subjective ''a refusal is expected'' goes that little bit too far. 
 It is up to the Minister to demonstrate how the powers are going to be used and that they will be used properly, not in a draconian way. On occasions, yes, they should be used to sort out problems such as those that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) just mentioned, where people deliberately flout procedures. However, we must recognise that the powers are being introduced on the back of very recent, raw experiences. People who are feeling bruised, and who thought that the powers under the Animal Health Act 1981 were draconian enough, are now facing these additional measures. I think that the real impact that the measures might have is slowly 
 beginning to leak out into the wider agricultural community and various people are becoming concerned about what the Bill will mean for them if it is passed. 
 Often, legislation can slip through and people only find out about it when it confronts them. This legislation, however, is beginning to unsettle a considerable number of people. They feel that the Government are going too far too quickly, and that there is no need for such an absolute timetable. We did not have a consultation process, and people feel that they are being bulldozed into accepting things that will substantially restrict their rights in an epidemic or time of disease spread.
 There is much in the amendments, but the aspect relating to warrants, on which we have concentrated, is important. Once the enforcement of a warrant—legal action—starts to take place, all sorts of other things can come about. When we look at the whole issue of whether a premises is unoccupied, or whether a person is away, we can see that no reasonable excuse will make any difference: whack, in the officials will come. That is unacceptable, and I hope that we can modify it. 
It being One o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o'clock.